Watch a fearless German woman beating off a lecherous Muslim – with her handbag.

Enjoy!

(Hat-tip to our Facebook commenter, John Bobbitt)

A tenured university professor praises Osama bin Laden, recruits for the jihad – and is protected by the university.

Julio Pino, a professor at Kent State University speaks for al-Qaeda and ISIS.

Ryan Mauro tells Megyn Kelly of Fox News why this isn’t simply a matter of free speech.

This is an interesting video, shown on Egyptian TV on January 18, 2016.

Ahmad Qhadaf Al-Dam, a former intelligence officer of Colonel Qhadafi’s Libya, and a cousin of the dictator, talks about weapons of mass destruction that Libya had acquired and then bargained away – except for a few chemical weapons hidden in the desert and some sent to Syria – in a deal with the West. He declares that Libya no longer needs weapons to  defend itself against Israel, because Israel is no longer an enemy of the Arabs but their ally. He also says that the Arab nation can only be either the slave or the enemy of the West.

In this excellent video published by the Clarion Project in December 2015, Raheel Raza, president of Muslims Facing Tomorrow, talks truthfully about radical Islam.

(Hat-tip to our Facebook commenter, Darryl Kerney)

Geert Wilders is a brave fighter against the Islamization of his country, Holland – and of Europe and the West in general.

He would stop the floods of Third World, overwhelmingly Muslim, immigrants pouring into Europe. They bring with them their barbarous customs, an ideology of conquest and subjugation, violence and disease. They become instantly dependent on welfare provided out of the taxes of the indigenous Europeans;  and at the same time they declare their intention of subverting the political system and rule of law under which their hosts live, and instituting their authoritarianism and cruel sharia law instead.

It should be intolerable to all Europeans. But so many of them have been brain-washed by leftism since the 1960s to believe that they owe the peoples of the Third World recompense for having colonized their countries, that they are bowing like the Christians they are, to the avengers of their self-confessed sins. (However little they consciously adhere to their ancestral religion, their moral culture was marinaded in it for a long dark age, and its self-abasing dogma still apparently feels right to them.)

In fact, European colonization brought huge benefits to the Third World. The Third World is in debt to the First World, not the other way about.

Will enough Europeans support Geert Wilders’s effort to hold back the flood? As help came to the little Dutch boy who tried to stop the sea breaking through the dyke by putting his finger into the hole?

He seems to think that help is on its way. He  writes at Canada Free press:

We are witnessing America’s struggle to be America, and the struggle of several European nations, among them the Netherlands, Britain, France, Germany and many others to preserve their identity and liberty, to remain the Netherlands, Britain, France, Germany. Everywhere, patriots are on the march. We are living the Patriot Spring.

Everywhere, democratic revolutions are underway. They will drive the elites from power. People are sick and tired of seeing their nations lose. They are fed up with how the political and media elites are weakening their country. They want to regain their national sovereignty from supranational organizations such as the European Union. They want to get rid of the fake parliaments that sell out the national interests because they no longer stand for what the majority of the people want. They want brave and patriot politicians in the legislatures. They also want more direct democracy, so that the people can correct those who misrepresent them.

For decades, Westerners have been told by their elites that multiculturalism was a virtue and patriotism a thing of the past. The values of the middle classes with their common sense, rooted in the traditions and morals passed down by their parents, were undermined and ridiculed by the mindless political correctness of the educational system, the government apparatus, and the mainstream media. The economic prosperity of the people was squandered by high taxes, foolish monetary experiments, and bailouts for foreign countries. “Our nation first” became “our nation last”. 

The elites applaud politicians such as German Chancellor Angela Merkel. President Obama praised her for her leadership. Time dubbed her “Chancellor of the Free World”, for one single reason. Because she has foolishly sold out the safety and wellbeing of her own people to hordes of largely male fortune seekers who rather than fight for their own country, have come to live on German taxpayers’ money.

Frau Merkel is not the only Western politician conducting policies that harm the interests of her own people. In fact, most of our Western leaders, including my own Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte, are politically correct adherents of detrimental open door policies. Before the year in which Angela Merkel became “Person of the Year” was over, Germany experienced its own sexual 9/11. On New Year’s Eve in Cologne alone, over 1,000 women were assaulted, groped, raped. So far, 30 suspects have been caught. All of them North-Africans, and half of those asylum seekers. Also in other West European countries we see a rise of “sexual” assaults.

Unlike the ruling elites in politics, media, and academia, ordinary people recognize an existential threat when they see one. Years ago already, they have begun to realize that the democratic institutions in their national capitals no longer represent the will of the people. They realize that time is running out for the West, and that the moment has come for a democratic revolution to halt the folly of the elites, otherwise our superior Western civilization will perish, our nation will change beyond recognition, and our children’s future will be endangered. It is clear what millions of Europeans and Americans want. They want to protect national sovereignty, stop the tsunami of asylum seekers, close the borders to mass immigration, stop spending their taxes on foreigners, they want leaders who truly represent them and defend the national interest. They do not want their countries to be Islamized.

And that is why we should add a new chapter to the long list of historical examples of people standing up for democracy and freedom. Let us add the Patriot Spring of 2016 to the list. And let us all be part of it.

One speaker in the video blames a conspiracy of leftists, Zionists and capitalists for the Muslim rape of Europe. Obviously Zionists have nothing to do with it. It would in no way serve their interests. A Muslim Europe will be disastrous for Israel. Capitalists also have no interest in such an appalling development. They cannot gain anything from so many unemployable dependents. But leftists – yes. They invited them in. (European “conservatives” are welfare state leftists.) If there are enough Europeans who’ve still got balls, there will be civil war. The leftist Jewish lady at the end talks enough balls to furnish a dozen men. She was obviously tacked on to strengthen the idea that what is happening to Europe is a Jewish-capitalist conspiracy! The video is more than likely a neo-Nazi production. Yet what it says is happening to Europe is true!

Afterword: The Jewish (American) woman at the end of the video is Barbara Lerner Spectre, notorious for her promotion of multiculturalism in Europe for completely illogical and borderline insane reasons. She argues that if Europe becomes “multicultural” – ie. overwhelmed and governed by Muslims – the Jews of Europe and Israel will somehow benefit, so they need to help the process along!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MFE0qAiofMQ

Europe is being raped by Islam.

And the filth, stench and diseases of the Third World are now polluting the First World.

Meira Svirsky reports and comments:

Disturbing news out of Germany and Austria reads like a sick advert for a porn movie. “Report: Locals Fled Pool After Migrants Masturbated Into Jacuzzi, Defecated Into Kid’s Pool, Invaded Girls Changing Rooms.” The report continues, saying that when challenged by the pool staff, the men laughed “in the face of pool staff”.

The obscene actions were caught on film by a security camera. After being  thrown out by lifeguards, the men came back, “jeering” and taking selfies in the polluted hot tub.

Many other pools have reported similar incidences, including a series of sexual assaults on bathers as young as a three-year-old boy at the pool with his mother and 11-year-old girls targeted at water slides by gangs of migrants.

After the New Year’s Eve attacks in Germany, where coordinated, organized gangs of migrant men in Cologne and other cities surrounded German women and proceeded to grope, rape and rob them as their helpless boyfriends and police watched (who were themselves surrounded and harassed), the gloves supposedly came off the politically-correct Germany media.

Still, there has been only a trickle of reports. (And disturbingly, included in the reports is the fact that, in one particular sexual-assault incident, the men were detained by police, only to be later released.)

Shamed into reporting the Cologne attacks after a full four days of media silence, the discussion unfortunately centered on victim blaming (by none other than the mayor of Cologne herself — as well as skewed takes on the incidents by feminists ready to sacrifice their sisters to the greater cause of anti-“racism”).

In the cases of gang harassment at pools, officials have taken a similar tack, saying migrant men must be schooled in Europeans values and norms. Pools that refused to allow in migrants in the wake of these incidents have been either shamed or forced into reopening their doors to them, with explanatory posters of improper behavior posted prominently at their doors.

Which completely misses the point.

Yes, a culture of pederasty exists in Afghanistan, where pre-pubescent boys are taken by powerful officials to be “played with” at will.

Yes, women in Middle Eastern and some African countries dress more modestly than their European counterparts, leading some Middle Eastern men to assume European women are “fair meat”.

That doesn’t explain coordinated attacks in at least 12 German states, according to a leaked report of the federal criminal police, nor does it explain leering gangs taking selfies in post-polluted hot tubs. …

Europeans, who expected the migrants to receive their outpouring of largess graciously, have awakened to the latest manifestation of Islamist terror, whose goal is to control and dominate foreign cultures until they submit to the imposition of sharia-compliant Islam.

Apparently, as we have seen with brutalities of the Islamic State and with the above deviant behaviors in Europe, anything goes in order to achieve this goal.

It is being achieved. Without resistance.

Why did the German men not act to protect the women when they were attacked by the savage Muslims? 

Seems they have been emasculated by “political correctness”.  

The times they are a-changing.

A new sort of politics is arising: populist, passionate, inconsistent, pragmatic, loud, muscular, energetic, boastful –  and gloriously capitalist.

It’s case is put in exclamations rather than arguments. Policy statements abrupt as a tweet.

Donald Trump invented it, heralds it, personifies it.

The conservative National Review got a bunch of conservatives – some of them greatly and justly respected as thinkers of the Right – to explain that Trump doesn’t belong with them.

They’re right. He doesn’t.

But it is they who must catch up.

Mark Steyn puts it this way:

I’ve received a ton of emails today asking me what I make of the National Review hit. I used to contribute to NR, and I generally make it a rule not to comment on publications for which I once wrote. … Nevertheless, notwithstanding some contributors I admire, the whole feels like a rather obvious trolling exercise. …

I don’t think Trump supporters care that he’s not a fully paid-up member in good standing of “the conservative movement” – in part because, as they see it, the conservative movement barely moves anything.

If you want the gist of NR’s argument, here it is:

I think we can say that this is a Republican campaign that would have appalled Buckley, Goldwater, and Reagan…

A real conservative walks with us. Ronald Reagan read National Review and Human Events for intellectual sustenance…

My old boss, Ronald Reagan, once said…

Ronald Reagan was famous for…

When Reagan first ran for governor of California…

Reagan showed respect for…

Reagan kept the Eleventh Commandment…

Far cry from Ronald Reagan’s “I am paying for this microphone” line…

Trump is Dan Quayle, and everyone and his auntie are Lloyd Bentsen (see here): “I knew Ronald Reagan, I worked for Ronald Reagan, I filled in Ronald Reagan’s subscription-renewal form for National Review. And you, sir, are no Ronald Reagan.”

You have to be over 50 to have voted for Reagan, and a supposed “movement” can’t dine out on one guy forever, can it? What else you got?

Well, there are two references to Bush, both of them following the words “Reagan and”. But no mention of Dole, one psephological citation of Romney, and one passing sneer at McCain as a “cynical charlatan” – and that’s it for the last three decades of presidential candidates approved by National Review, at least to the extent that they never ran entire issues trashing them.

Will the more or less official disdain of “the conservative movement” make any difference to Trump’s supporters? Matt Welch in Reason:

Many or even most of the people who make a living working in politics and political commentary—even those who think of themselves as outsiders, such as nonpartisan libertarians—inevitably begin to view their field as one dedicated primarily to ideas, ideology, philosophy, policy, and so forth, and NOT to the emotional, ideologically unmoored cultural passions of a given (and perhaps fleeting) moment.

I’d put that contrast slightly differently. The movement conservatives at National Review make a pretty nice living out of “ideas, ideology, philosophy, policy, and so forth”. The voters can’t afford that luxury: They live in a world where, in large part due to the incompetence of the national Republican Party post-Reagan, Democrat ideas are in the ascendant. And they feel that this is maybe the last chance to change that.

Go back to that line “When Reagan first ran for governor of California…” Gosh, those were the days, weren’t they? But Reagan couldn’t get elected Governor of California now, could he? Because the Golden State has been demographically transformed. …

The past is another country, and the Chamber of Commerce Republicans gave it away. Reagan’s California no longer exists. And, if America as a whole takes on the demographics of California, then “the conservative movement” will no longer exist. That’s why, for many voters, re-asserting America’s borders is the first, necessary condition for anything else – and it took Trump to put that on the table.

Dr. Brad Lyles writes at Canada Free Press:

It is discouraging to find the National Review, home to a profundity of prominent pundits, attacking the frontrunner, Donald Trump, on the very eve of the first primary contest. “Conservatives against Trump?” Really? …

Conservatives against Trump misses the point entirely. None of us regular guy and gal Conservatives out here in flyover-land … are encumbered by the ridiculous ages-old insistence upon purity in Conservative candidates.

Most people in the real world understand life is composed of incessant demands we make “trade-off” decisions. Traditionally, the only political class denying the reality of trade-offs has been the Left. It is certainly no longer helpful, if ever it was, for our Conservative literati to parse candidates’ strict allegiance to Conservative doctrine (and I write this as a life-long staunch Conservative).

How can National Review be so wrong? How can so many Conservative luminaries be so wrong?

It is easy. They can adopt the timeworn requirement that a Republican candidate, especially one who self-identifies as a Conservative, be a purist Conservative. In the current circumstance, however, the literati actually do possess the option of a purist Conservative, Ted Cruz. For the first time in history (well, aside from Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan), Conservative purists can realistically expect to run a purist Conservative candidate.

And it is true Ted Cruz is a proven Constitutional Conservative, his dedication to the cause attested to by his education, training, practice, office, and nearly every single word he’s ever uttered.

But now (or at least since June 16, 2015), a quasi-Conservative has entered stage left, pirouetting far beyond every other diva on the stage and stealing the limelight every single damned day since.

How can this be? How has Trump been able to polarize the debate so deliciously — among Conservatives? Easy answer: The self-immolating wing of the Conservative Movement, including the bright lights at National Review, again, insist upon purity.

Is this prudent? In particular, does Ted Cruz’ Conservative purity predict he will/would be superior to Trump as President? Reflexively, we Conservatives would answer, “of course”.

Life doesn’t always work that way, however. We are constrained by trade-offs not of our own choosing. For example, Cruz will endeavor to reinstate Constitutional principles. But, striving against the hydra of the Administrative State and the Crony-Capitalist Establishment, Cruz will likely make no more headway than even Ronald Reagan when merely trying to close the infant Department of Education.

Furthermore, Cruz’s legal/Constitutional expertise just simply is no match for Trump’s likely success in his emblematic asymmetric approach to diplomatic, economic, cultural, and military endeavors. Moreover, Trump’s personal history of success in most every endeavor, cannot be underestimated as a boon to the Presidency.

There is one more spectacular element which makes Trump likely to be a natural-born comprehensively successful President — and for Constitutionalists as well. He has declared himself, and then doubled down, on his intention to destroy radical Islam — declaring the need for a temporary ban on Muslims entering the country — how incendiary! And he declared to “build a wall”,  and shut down illegal immigration. Whoa! And he not only survived the media conflagration following both pronouncements, he destroyed the media in the process.

These two issues, illegal immigration and radical Islam, are the two pivotal issues of our time, the “existential” issues that are truly existential. If we do not prevail in these two arenas, we will prevail in none.

But wait … the citizen can also win a guy who  emphasized the necessity of a “huge” military (and huge support of Vets). But there’s more. … The citizen can also win draconian tax cuts, slashed regulations, with the jobs and prosperity inevitably to follow (Ex. Presidents Harding, JFK, and Reagan). …

In particular, Trump has accomplished what no politician, ever, has accomplished. He owns the media. He defeats the media and gets his message out no matter the forum and in every forum.

In fact, some would argue the media and its sibling Political Correctness Movement are the true“existential” threats facing this country. Both facilitate nearly all dangerous things we contend with. Trump’s conquest of these malign forces, as President, may be the most pivotal accomplishment of any President in history. Imagine four more years of this tour de force! Fabulous!

Trump can bring us successes on the political battlefield — and for Conservatives — unmatched even by Ronald Reagan. And it will be fun! National Review and its peerless contributors should be ashamed of their lackluster vision.

Obama said: “One of the prettiest sounds on earth” is the Muslim call to prayer.

Here it is, sounding now 5 times a day throughout Germany – the land of Bach and Beethoven.

Who is the woman whom millions of Americans would vote for to become the first woman president of the United States? What sort of woman is she? What has she done? What does she stand for? What sort of model would she be for rising generations of Americans?

Is she a person of model character? No. She is an habitual liar (see here and here), a conniver and plotter; arrogant, corrupt, and vicious and cruel.

Is she a person who has achieved great things? No. Her only achievements have been catastrophes, bringing incalculable suffering upon millions of people who live their precarious lives in frail societies, most notably in Libya, where she brought unending chaos; in Nigeria, where she actively encouraged Boko Haram, the butchers of untold numbers of defenseless Christians; in Egypt, where she did all she could (but fortunately failed) to keep the tyrannical Muslim Brotherhood in power; in Iran, where she has helped Obama strengthen the oppressive dictatorship of the Ayatollahs.

Is she a woman of ideas? Does she at least associate herself with a political philosophy that promotes freedom, openness, tolerance? No. She has not articulated a single original political idea. And far from promoting freedom, openness and tolerance, she has actively worked with Islamic enemies of America to shut down free speech.

Is she clever? No. Cunning, yes, she is. But she lives in a sort of mental glass house in which she is forever throwing stones. Apparently oblivious to the facts of her own life, she denounces the very people and activities that support her political existence. It is a kind of blind, blundering stupidity.

Or call it “cognitive dissonance”. Examples of it are given by Victor Davis Hanson, who writes at Townhall:

Hillary Clinton recently said she would go after offshore tax “schemes” in the Caribbean. …

Yet her husband, Bill Clinton, reportedly made $10 million as an advisor and an occasional partner in the Yucaipa Global Partnership, a fund registered in the Cayman Islands.

Is Ms. Clinton’s implicit argument that she knows offshore tax dodging is unethical because her family has benefitted from it? Does she plan to return millions of dollars of her family’s offshore-generated income?

Clinton is calling for “huge campaign finance reform,” apparently to end the excessive and often pernicious role of big money in politics. But no candidate, Republican or Democrat, raised more than the $112 million that Clinton collected in 2015 for her primary campaign.

In 2013, Clinton earned nearly $1.6 million in speaking fees from Wall Street banks. She raked in $675,000 from Goldman Sachs, and $225,000 apiece from Bank of America, Deutsche Bank, Morgan Stanley and UBS Wealth Management. Did that profiteering finally make Clinton sour on Wall Street’s pay-for-play ethics?

Clinton has also vowed to raise taxes on hedge fund managers. Is that a way of expressing displeasure with her son-in-law, Marc Mezvinsky, who operates a $400 million hedge fund?

For that matter, how did Clinton’s daughter, Chelsea – who worked for a consulting firm and a hedge fund despite having no background in finance – reportedly become worth an estimated $15 million?

Hillary Clinton recently proposed a new $350 billion government plan to make college more affordable. Certainly, universities spike tuition costs, and student-loan debt has surpassed $1 trillion. Colleges spend money indiscriminately, mostly because they know that the federal government will always back student loans.

Yet, since she left office, Clinton routinely has charged universities $200,000 or more for her brief 30-minute chats. Her half-hour fee is roughly equal to the annual public-university tuition cost for eight students.

It’s been said that Clinton is trying to rekindle President Obama’s 2012 allegations of a Republican “war on women”. That charge and the war against the “1 percent” helped deliver key states to Obama. Renewing that theme, Clinton recently declared on Twitter, “Every survivor of sexual assault deserves to be heard, believed, and supported.”

Does Clinton’s spirited advocacy of “every” survivor include the array of women who have accused Bill Clinton of sexual misconduct? In other words, does Hillary now trust the testimonies of survivors such as Juanita Broaddrick, Kathleen Willey and Paula Jones, whose allegations must be “believed and supported”?

Ms. Clinton has also called for more financial transparency and greater accountability in general – something needed after scandals at government agencies such as the IRS, VA and GSA. But Clinton’s use of a private email server probably violated several federal laws. Her laxity with confidential communications was arguably more egregious than that of Gen. David Petraeus, a national icon who pleaded guilty to mishandling classified materials.

Perhaps Clinton assumes that the electorate is still in the ethical world of the 1990s. Back then, it was somewhat easier to dampen scandals – at least the ones that didn’t involve sex in the White House. But in the age of social media, 24-hour cable TV, instantaneous blogging and a different public attitude toward political corruption and sexual assault, Hillary Clinton now appears to be caught in the wrong century.

Womanizing and sexual coercion can no longer be so easily dismissed. The financial antics of the Clinton Foundation don’t past muster …

Ms. Clinton at times tries to offset scandals by pointing to her record as secretary of state. But few believe that her handling of Russia, Iran, China, Benghazi or Islamic terrorism made the world calmer or America more secure.

There is a brazenness, an audacity, a shameless impudence in her hypocrisy that has no match even among politicians. In this, one would have to look back to medieval Popes to find her equal. 

Yet there are tens of millions of voters who would put enormous power into her hands. For no better reason than that she is a woman. Such people deserve their doom, of course. But what of the rest?

America must not fall into the talons of this hell-hag!